A Perspective of Necessity

Two weeks ago the latest set of global climate change talks ended in Durban South Africa.  Depending who you ask, the talks were a much needed success at a time when it was needed most, or just another half-hearted outcome designed to kick the can down the road once again.  Like most things, it depends on your perspective. 

In the broadest sense the talks in Durban did successfully achieve three important outcomes:  (1) The continuation of the Kyoto Protocol which is the only existing global effort to address climate change; (2) The acceptance of a new platform (the Durban Platform) that will serve as the basis for a new and more ambitious global effort to address climate change; and (3) The decision to operationalize the Green Climate Fund, which is the overarching financial mechanism that will help finance global efforts to address climate change.  Obviously this summary doesn’t begin to describe the complexity of the technical and political issues discussed during the two weeks in Durban.  For more details I recommend reading the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) final summary report:  http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/enb12534e.html.  The level of detail and UN acronyms in this ENB summary should make any policy wonk salivate at a level to make Ivan Pavlov proud.

After the talks concluded I thought a lot about what I would say in this blog to provide some unique insight or earth shattering revelation.  But it’s hard to come up with something unique to say when for every person who attended the talks there were at least ten blogs generated.  Therefore, I decided to take a different track entirely.  I decided to have somebody else do the work for me and tell me what unique insights and earth shattering revelations they had on the talks.  Besides possibly making my life easier (it did) I was interested in exploring these talks from a completely different perspective than my own. 

In terms of climate change Africa is in a very interesting position, they have had and will continue to have a small impact on the causes of global climate change (Africa as a continent emits less than 5% of global greenhouse gas emissions) yet arguably they will be one of the areas most dramatically affected by climate change.  Because of this, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that for the countries of Africa their priority interest during the talks in Durban was how they will adapt to the effects of climate change as opposed to how they might reduce their own carbon footprint.  Obviously Africa is not unique as many other places on earth are in the very same predicament (small island countries for example are facing extinction of their national and cultural identity in addition to other possible effects). 

To properly explore the African perspective of the Durban talks I sought out those that have spent years working in Africa on climate and sustainability issues.  We had long discussions on the multitude of issues of the Durban talks, such as the need for clean energy, the importance of forest conservation, and the politics of developing versus developed countries to name a few.  But at the end of our conversations we always ended up in the same place - climate change adaptation.  Specifically, how can African countries whose limited resources are already being stretched to address other critical needs, such as poverty, health and stability, possibly support climate change adaptation actions. 

Under the existing framework of the global climate change talks the idea that richer countries should help poorer countries adapt to the effects of climate change is universally accepted.  This acceptance is based in no small measure to the fact that the richer countries are the ones who caused the problem in the first place and have a responsibility to lead global change.  The issue of whether or not richer countries should help poorer countries adapt to climate change is not particularly controversial.  What is controversial however is how much assistance will be provided and what from what sources. Normally rich countries might increase their amount of foreign aid to include financial assistance to poorer countries for climate change adaptation.  However, in the current global economic state most developed countries are not only unwilling to increase their foreign aid significantly to include help for climate change adaptation, but are actually looking to reduce their current levels of foreign assistance overall.  It comes down to a problem of theory versus practice.  Therefore, as we delved further into these discussions I found myself thinking in terms of a perspective of necessity - given the economic realities, how do you foster critical climate change adaptation action where action is so desperately needed?

A possible answer as it turns out came from work that is already being done on the ground at relatively small scales throughout Africa - bring the vast resources of the private sector to help poorer countries adapt to the effects of climate change. 

To be clear the private sector has been heavily involved in the global climate change talks since the beginning.  However, their interest has been mostly around climate change mitigation where the potential for profits from the development of new technologies or carbon credits for example is more easily understood.  Helping local communities or poor countries adapt to climate change has never been easy to connect with the economic interests of the private sector, at least not in an obvious manner or for large global corporations.  Yet the connection is actually a simple one to follow:  climate change has a detrimental effect on people and natural resources, both of which directly impact long-term business success. 

One doesn’t have to look too far to see the truth of this premise (in my case just a few feet to a refrigerator stocked with Coke cans).  Coca Cola is investing millions of dollars to improve freshwater access in Africa, in part to meet their corporate social responsibility goals no doubt, but also because the success of their global business model requires access to fresh water.  Citibank also has been investing in climate change adaptation activities in Africa, specifically looking at the how the loss of natural resources might play a role in supply chain security.  The bottom line for these and other global companies is that investments in climate change adaptation efforts around the world are a way to ensure the security of raw materials, supplies, labor and consumer base, among other things, that businesses rely on for their long-term profitability.  This is not a new concept and many have been working on these issues for quite a while, but at the talks in Durban it seemed to take in a new level of importance.  The UN developed a program called the Adaptation Private Sector Initiative that is specifically tasked to explore opportunities for the private sector in the area of climate change adaptation projects: 

http://unfccc.int/adaptation/nairobi_work_programme/private_sector_initiative/items/4623.php

During our lengthy discussions this idea intrigued me the most - private sector companies taking on a larger role in Africa to help local communities adapt to climate change.  I see this as an exciting opportunity to increase the scale of effort needed to make significant positive changes for poor countries a reality while also supporting broader economic development.  Therefore, maybe one of the most important outcomes of the Durban talks was simply a renewed commitment by all the Parties for action to address climate change adaptation and an understanding that action has to start now.

Many thanks to Sarah Frazee and Sarshen Marais at Conservation South Africa for their wonderful insights and for doing the incredible work that they do.

The Politics of Change (Climate Change that is)

When dealing with U.S. politics I always like to think of the quote from Otto von Bismarck about laws being like sausages, that it's better not to see them being made.  It implies a certain disgust that might come from the process, which for many is exactly where the politics around climate change is now. 

On Capitol Hill, the supposed crucible of honest political thought, climate change is viewed with such disdain that public debate on the issue is almost nonexistent.  Even the most progressive lawmaker who supports actions to address climate change avoids speaking directly of it lest some of its negative mojo stick to them.  In fact, the only Member of Congress that I can think of who has recently come out and spoken about climate change forcefully and publicly is Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island, who happens to also be probably the most eloquent person on Capitol Hill.  If you haven’t had a chance to see his speech you should, it’s on youtube of course: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6VQ0vYfrAw  Though as a warning to all those with a short attention spans, the Senator’s speech is 23 minutes long – eloquent but not brief.  

Why is climate change such a dirty word (or two words in this case) on Capitol Hill?  Put simply, any action to address climate change has become the victim of a political game and been branded as harmful to our American way of life.

As an aside, I’m always amused by the idea that the United States is perfect and we shouldn’t change anything.  I wonder if Apple had followed that same thought process whether or not all of us (and I do mean all of us) would still have some sort of i-product in at least one of our pockets?  One of the greatest things about this country I think has been our willingness to innovate and lead.

Is it true that addressing climate change through laws or policies will be harmful for our economy and our country?  I think this is a perfectly valid question.  Quite frankly I think this is the way all issues should be approached by Congress, with open and frank debate.  But to do this all facts must be put on the table, which is not the case with climate change.  If you listen to any of the arguments against taking action on climate change they all revolve on the short-term view (usually in the immediate 2 to 6 year range with is coincidently how long a Representative or Senator serves in Congress).  Climate change however by its very nature is a slow moving process that has serious long-term consequences.  Isn’t it human nature to consider both the short-term and long-term ramifications of any serious action we are contemplating?  Apparently this type of logic is unknown on Capitol Hill.  I once heard Tony Blaire say that while he was Prime Minister of Great Britain it would have been much more convenient if problems came one at a time so you could address them each in turn.  Yet it’s almost impossible to convince any lawmaker to not give all of their attention to short-term and immediate issues because of there is such a heavy skew of political gain or loss associated with that issue.  This has been true since the days of the first toga clad politician.  Yet I wonder if we should expect more than just a myopic political view from those that we put our trust in?

Politics as usual is just part of the problem around climate change.  Partisanship is the other.  Right now we find ourselves in a horribly frustrating time of strong partisan politics, probably the worst since the Hoover Administration (I actually don’t know if this is true but I just like saying Hoover).  And in times of partisan politics there is a deep seeded need to label everything as our issue or their issue and to support or go against the issue accordingly.  Climate change has been tabbed as a “liberal” issue supported by environmentalists that will harm American businesses and our economy.  It’s interesting that many of this country’s largest companies not only dispute this notion but actually advocate on behalf of taking action to address climate change and have been investing in related actions for years.  But partisan politics is about closed ears and open mouths.  Why address an issue honestly when you can paint it as evil and use as a weapon to defeat those Senators or Representatives who represent the “other side”?  The partisan environment is so toxic that even advocacy groups who normally support climate change action are leery to talk about it too much from fear they might have doors slammed in their face.

What all of this means is that climate change is unpopular because it can’t meet the test of two powerful political forces:  The politics of now; and the politics of us versus them.   

Should we pass laws or change policy to address climate change?  This question can’t possibly be answered unless we acknowledge the fundamental truth that climate change is real and should be open for debate.  Anything else is political theatre.  Make your case either way, but make it honestly.